© Copyright 2022, T. Stanfill Benns ( All emphasis within quotes is the author’s unless indicated otherwise.)
Supplied or any other kind of jurisdiction, for all intents and purposes has ceased to be an issue because the suppletory source no longer exists and no certainty can be had regarding the validity of any orders received, which must necessarily recede the reception of jurisdiction. Only a canonically elected pope possesses the power approve bishops and grant them jurisdiction or to supply jurisdiction. This is because the pope alone is the supreme holder of jurisdiction and has always been the only source of the supplying power in the past, (Pope Pius XII was the last of these popes). Once it was made clear that no one can supply jurisdiction during an interregnum and grant the papal mandate necessary to provide ordinary juriscition — and Pope Pius XII’s infallible papal election constitution Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis leaves no room for doubt on this matter — all the claims to possess such jurisdiction became groundless. This election law was based entirely on Pope St. Pius X’s previous election law, Vacante Sede Apostolica, and that law was a codification of all election laws in the Church prior to that time. So this was no “new law,” any more than Pope St. Pius X’s election law was new. It only rewrote Pope St. Pius X’s previous law and incorporated some necessary changes.
Is jurisdiction supplied by the law itself?
The task left to those who wish to puzzle out the full consequences of the jurisdiction muddle is to determine what acts trace back to jurisdiction and who possessed it following the election of Angelo Roncalli. The easiest way to do this is to study the conferral of Orders, because bishops cannot validly function unless they receive their jurisdiction (the actual office, confirmed and conferred by papal mandate) from a valid pope. They cannot delegate jurisdiction unless they have received this mandate. Ordinary jurisdiction comes with the office and if there is no office there is no jurisdiction (Can. 147).
But the problem with jurisdiction goes much further than that. For decades, Traditionalists kept those challenging their authority chasing their tails by insisting no one could challenge their validity, but in this they were greatly mistaken. When a sitting Roman Pontiff unquestionably reigns, this is the canonical presumption, true, as they loudly proclaim, BUT ONLY IF THEY CAN BE PROVE THEY EVER POSSESSED AN OFFICE IN THE FIRST PLACE AND ONLY UNTIL THEIR ORDERS ARE DETERMINED TO BE CERTAINLY VALID BY THE HOLY OFFICE ! For jurisdiction can be granted only if one possesses an office and has been assigned specific subjects, and no Traditionalist can claim today that any office was ever granted to them by competent authority, according to the Sacred Canons, under Can. 147. If there is any doubt whatsoever about that validity the faithful, under the penalty of mortal sin, must follow the safer course according to the unanimous opinion of the moral theologians and canonists.
For to act otherwise would be to follow an opinion which would be only probable, and that was condemned by Bd. Innocent XI (DZ 1151, 1153). This is compounded by the fact that there is no Roman Pontiff today to appeal this case to and no reasonable expectation that one will be elected anytime soon. This makes the obligation of following the safer course even more binding. Traditionalists behave as though there are no rules to follow in these times. They pointedly ignore the fact that Pope Pius XII decreed in his Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis that the acts of anyone who dares to usurp papal jurisdiction or violate papal law during an interregnum are null and void.
So all the years they have been crying “necessity“ and “emergency,” and invoking every shaky legal principle under the sun, there has been a clear law that forbids them to act in any way whatsoever. And it is not just any law, but an infallible decree. This law applies to even validly consecrated bishops acting without jurisdiction, and that includes Marcel Lefebvre and Peter Martin Ngo Dinh Thuc. These men lost their jurisdiction by joining the non-Catholic Novus Ordo and Traditionalist sects, (Can. 188 no. 4, 2314 §1). And when bishops lose such jurisdiction, or never receive it at all, they lose the ability to perform the following functions they have been performing for over 50 years now. These include:
• Erecting seminaries and “calling” men to the priesthood;
• Determining if candidates are fit to be priests;
• Conferring first tonsure;
• Conferring minor orders
• Ordaining priests and consecrating bishops, (since Pius XII voids these acts);
• Assigning men to various pastorates;
• Hearing Confessions, administering the Sacraments and celebrating Mass (all null and void);
• Preaching, teaching and demanding financial support and obedience.
All this issues not just from Pope Pius XII’s election law but from other popes and Canon Law as well. If those believing themselves to be Catholic wish to avoid mortal sin, communicatio in sacris and cooperation in sin, they must avoid these men. If they fail to do so, then let them know that they call down upon themselves the curse of Sts. Peter and Paul, as both Pope Pius XII and Pope St. Pius X state in their (nearly identical) election laws.
Please be sure to take the above into consideration while viewing articles on jurisdiction written in the Archives. Without unquestionably valid ordination/consecration no jurisdiction is possible, for all jurisdiction, supplied and otherwise emanates from the Roman Pontiff. Validity, not jurisdiction is the issue. All these years Traditionalists were arguing beside the point and no one called them on it. We are calling them on it now, and all the previous articles written before realizing their use of false premises must be viewed with this in mind.
